About 'What Darwin Got Wrong'
by BradfordJerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini authored Survival of the fittest theory: Darwinism's limits. The article touches on some points raised in the thread A New Book. From the piece:
Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical. The possibility that anything is seriously amiss with Darwin's account of evolution is hardly considered. Such dissent as there is often relies on theistic premises which Darwinists rightly say have no place in the evaluation of scientific theories. So onlookers are left with the impression that there is little or nothing about Darwin's theory to which a scientific naturalist could reasonably object. The methodological scepticism that characterises most areas of scientific discourse seems strikingly absent when Darwinism is the topic.
Indeed.
Moreover, it is perfectly general: it applies to any species, independent of what its phenotype may happen to be. And it is remarkably simple. In effect, the mechanism of trait transmission it postulates consists of a random generator of genotypic variants that produce the corresponding random phenotypic variations, and an environmental filter that selects among the latter according to their relative fitness. And that's all. Remarkable if true.
Compelling evidence
But we don't think it is true. A variety of different considerations suggesting that it is not are mounting up. We feel it is high time that Darwinists take this evidence seriously, or offer some reason why it should be discounted. Our book about what Darwin got wrong reviews in detail some of these objections to natural selection and the evidence for them; this article is a brief summary.
So what's up?
This assumption (phenotype alteration resulting from natural selection pruning mutations) explains the random variation of phenotypic traits over time, but it doesn't explain why phenotypic traits evolve.
An explanation follows leading to this:
So much for the theory, now for the objections. Natural selection is a radically environmentalist theory.
After a bit on B.F. Skinner we arrive at:
In our book, we argue in some detail that much the same is true of Darwin's treatment of evolution: it overestimates the contribution the environment makes in shaping the phenotype of a species and correspondingly underestimates the effects of endogenous variables. For Darwin, the only thing that organisms contribute to determining how next-generation phenotypes differ from parent-generation phenotypes is random variation. All the non-random variables come from the environment.
Suppose, however, that Darwin got this wrong and various internal factors account for the data. If that is so, there is inevitably less for environmental filtering to do.
Now we're getting to a core message from their book- constraints above and below:
The consensus view among neo-Darwinians continues to be that evolution is random variation plus structured environmental filtering, but it seems the consensus may be shifting. In our book we review a large and varied selection of non-environmental constraints on trait transmission. They include constraints imposed "from below" by physics and chemistry, that is, from molecular interactions upwards, through genes, chromosomes, cells, tissues and organisms. And constraints imposed "from above" by universal principles of phenotypic form and self-organisation – that is, through the minimum energy expenditure, shortest paths, optimal packing and so on, down to the morphology and structure of organisms.
This remark reminded me of the ongoing feud between Zachriel and ID guy over nested hierarchies:
Pigs don't have wings, but that's not because winged pigs once lost out to wingless ones. And it's not because the pigs that lacked wings were more fertile than the pigs that had them. There never were any winged pigs because there's no place on pigs for the wings to go.
Here's an opening for top down analytics:
So, how many constraints on the evolution of phenotypes are there other than those that environmental filtering imposes? Nobody knows, but the picture now emerging is of many, many of them operating in many, many different ways and at many, many different levels. That's what the evolutionary developmental school of biology and the theory that gene regulatory networks control our underlying development both suggest. And it strikes us as entirely plausible.
This next comment relates to an insistent question posed by John A. Designer in a previous thread.
We should stress that every such case (and we argue in our book that free-riding is ubiquitous) is a counter-example to natural selection. Free-riding shows that the general claim that phenotypic traits are selected for their effects on fitness isn't true.
The concluding paragraph:
However, the internal evidence to back this imperialistic selectionism strikes us as very thin. Its credibility depends largely on the reflected glamour of natural selection which biology proper is said to legitimise. Accordingly, if natural selection disappears from biology, its offshoots in other fields seem likely to disappear as well. This is an outcome much to be desired since, more often than not, these offshoots have proved to be not just post hoc but ad hoc, crude, reductionist, scientistic rather than scientific, shamelessly self-congratulatory, and so wanting in detail that they are bound to accommodate the data, however that data may turn out. So it really does matter whether natural selection is true.
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Some Laurasiatheria have wings. Some don't.
Comment by Zachriel — February 3, 2010 @ 9:56 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Connected. Similarities among phenotypes. Hierarchy known as the taxonomic tree. Common Descent. Brilliant idea.
Oh gee whiz. That issue was dealt with by Darwin 150 years ago—in Origin—in the very first chapter.
Linkages can help channel the course of evolution, but that doesn't mean selection has no effect, or that linkages themselves can't exhibit variation.
Natural Selection can be directly observed and measured, in vitro and in vivo.
Comment by Zachriel — February 3, 2010 @ 10:02 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:23 pm
From the article:
Comment by nullasalus — February 3, 2010 @ 10:23 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:44 pm
That's all? Just that phenotypic traits are selected for their effects on fitness. It doesn't explain gravity? So "natural selection is true," and can explain at least some of the data—but not gravity.
Which they base on linkages, something Darwin discussed in Origin.
Comment by Zachriel — February 3, 2010 @ 10:44 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:03 pm
That natural selection can explain some of the data is not what Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini are denying. How could they be, when they say…
The most that natural selection can actually claim is that some phenotypic traits are selected for their effects on fitness; the rest are selected for… well, some other reason entirely, or perhaps for no reason at all.
Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini's thrust does not seem to be that Darwin didn't discuss linkages, but what they think said linkages (among other things) indicate about evolution.
Comment by nullasalus — February 3, 2010 @ 11:03 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:16 pm
Don't you think it's perfectly reasonable to re-examine Darwin's comparatively trivial treatment of the subject in the light of 150 years of molecular, genetic, and cellular knowledge, Zach?
Comment by chunkdz — February 3, 2010 @ 11:16 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:20 pm
Lol! The default position for the partisan irrational:
1) Fodor is anti-Darwin and therefore must be attacked.
2) Since he is anti-Darwin he must think that Natural Selection does not exist.
3) By showing the existence of Natural Selection I am exposing Fodor as an idiot of grand proportions.
Utterly predictable. Utterly irrational.
Comment by chunkdz — February 3, 2010 @ 11:20 pm
February 4th, 2010 at 12:20 am
Natural selection has been observed and measured and found wanting.
It appears that the majority of the variation is not due to natural selection at all.
Comment by ID guy — February 4, 2010 @ 12:20 am
February 4th, 2010 at 12:24 am
I don't think the authors would dispute this. It seems to me that they are making the point that NS is implicated where other factors are controlling.
Comment by Bradford — February 4, 2010 @ 12:24 am
February 4th, 2010 at 8:29 am
Zachriel said something about Laurasiatheria.
This group includes bats and whales.
bats and dolphins related?
So much for phylogenetic trees correlating to Common Descent…
Comment by ID guy — February 4, 2010 @ 8:29 am
February 4th, 2010 at 9:02 am
They conclude "So it really does matter whether natural selection is true. That's why we wrote our book," as if it were an open question. If they are inconsistent, that would be a problem with their article.
What they say about linkages isn't new, and they add no additional insights or empirical results. Perhaps they destroy Darwinism in the book, but they didn't make the case in their article.
Another book that destroys Darwinism. Ho hum.
Comment by Zachriel — February 4, 2010 @ 9:02 am
February 4th, 2010 at 9:02 am
It's constantly being reinvestigated, molecularly, genetically, cellulary and biologically. The journal Genetics has thousands of references to "selection."
Did someone attack Fodor?
He was inconsistent on the point. Consider this statement: "The most that natural selection can actually claim is that some phenotypic traits are selected for their effects on fitness."
Is that all!? It only does what Darwin said it does.
Fodor is hardly an idiot, but he is apparently confused.
Comment by Zachriel — February 4, 2010 @ 9:02 am
February 4th, 2010 at 9:03 am
Can some IDer correct ID guy's misunderstanding of natural selection?
Comment by Zachriel — February 4, 2010 @ 9:03 am
February 4th, 2010 at 9:13 am
That is apparently the point, but then they say they wrote their book to determine "whether natural selection is true." No one doubts there are other factors involved in evolution. Not all paths are open to evolution. Following one path means foregoing another. From the article, they haven't made much an argument that they have something new to offer.
Comment by Zachriel — February 4, 2010 @ 9:13 am
February 4th, 2010 at 9:16 am
As a matter of fact, yes.
Dolphins swim. Fish swim. Dolphins are the fish kind.
It's called evolutionary convergence, at least according to the very researchers you cite.
By the way, which two group best; dolphins, mice or toads? Hmm. Mice and toads have four legs. Well, let us know what you think.
Comment by Zachriel — February 4, 2010 @ 9:16 am
February 4th, 2010 at 9:23 am
It appears that the majority of the variation is not due to natural selection at all.
Again any misunderstanding is all yours.
The Strength of Natural Selection in the Wild:
Comment by ID guy — February 4, 2010 @ 9:23 am
February 4th, 2010 at 9:27 am
bats and dolphins related?
By Common Descent or Common Design?
What is the data to support your assertion?
So much for phylogenetic trees correlating to Common Descent…
And you are the crackpot kind.
According to phylogentic analysis dolphins and bats are directly related- ie share a common ancestor.
Yet we know better.
Or Common Design.
But that is not the point.
The point is convergence can explain the same data that your Common Descent explains.
Comment by ID guy — February 4, 2010 @ 9:27 am
February 4th, 2010 at 10:20 am
Zachriel,
Not really. All someone has to do is read the article to understand that they are not questioning whether natural selection takes place. You may have missed this important part of the article.
The most that natural selection can actually claim is that some phenotypic traits are selected for their effects on fitness; the rest are selected for… well, some other reason entirely, or perhaps for no reason at all.
They make a claim about what free-riding traits mean with regards to natural selection. That Darwin apparently had some idea of free-riding traits is not something they deny in the article, nor (apparently) the book. Perhaps they'll argue that Darwin was inconsistent.
Comment by nullasalus — February 4, 2010 @ 10:20 am
February 4th, 2010 at 10:46 am
As no one among your ID Friends has stepped up, we'll provide you some help. Natural selection is not a source of variation, but tends to reduce variation in populations. That's the whole point, really.
Darwin and his contemporaries thought that natural selection was too weak to be directly measured, so pointing out that natural selection is weak and only acts over long periods of time doesn't contradict the Theory of Evolution. Since then, methods have been developed to directly measure selection in the wild, including very difficult, long term studies of Galápagos finches. As to Berlinski,
A 16% increase in average number of offspring is very significant in nature, and there would be a strong tendency for the variant to become predominant in the population. (A 16% increase in reproductive success does not mean 84% is not due to selection. It's an increase in reproductive success, not a proportion that is due to selection.)
But if you actually read the Kingsolver paper, you would see that Berlinski mangles the views of the authors of that study.
Here's a bit of Kingsolver for educational purposes:
Notice the reference to correlation.
So, Kingsolver not only says that natural selection has been measured, but that it is a powerful force for adaptation.
By the way, which two group best; dolphins, mice or toads? Hmm. Mice and toads have four legs. Well, let us know what you think.
Comment by Zachriel — February 4, 2010 @ 10:46 am
February 4th, 2010 at 10:55 am
Yes, that is a restatement of Darwin's definition of natural selection. Darwin was a preeminent biologist and already knew that natural selection wasn't the only mechanism in play. They haven't said anything new.
Comment by Zachriel — February 4, 2010 @ 10:55 am
February 4th, 2010 at 11:33 am
It appears that the majority of the variation is not due to natural selection at all.
Change is variation Zach.
IOW natural selection is only responsible for a small amount of change from generation to generation.
That is not the point.
However once again you resort to appealing to long periods of time.
You are not doing science when you do that.
The point is that NS is weak. It is that it is so weak as to not provide much of anything at all.
It is drowned out by other factors.
Berlinski: These figures are commonly understood to represent a very weak correlation. Thus if a change in the length of a beak's finch by one standard deviation explains 16 percent of the change in the population's fitness, 84 percent of the change is not explained by selection at all.
You are a crackpot- that is not what Berlinski is saying.
What he is saying is that only 16 out of 100 owe their survival and reproduction to natural selection. And 84 out of 100 owe their survival and reproduction to something else.
Read it and own a copy of it so I can reference it as needed.
And what examples of this power were provided?
Comment by ID guy — February 4, 2010 @ 11:33 am
February 4th, 2010 at 11:37 am
Dolphins and mice have more in common with each other than either has with toads.
But it would all depend on what one chooses for grouping.
For example a crackpot may rely solely on the number of legs.
Comment by ID guy — February 4, 2010 @ 11:37 am
February 4th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Variation in biology refers to the differences between individuals in a population. It is often quantified as variations in morphology expressed as a deviation from the norm. Sources of variations including mutation and recombination.
Saying that "the majority of the variation is not due to natural selection at all" indicates you haven't bothered to learn the first thing about a theory you've spent years criticizing.
You cited Berlinski who cited Kingsolver who has found that selection is the primary cause of adaptive evolution within natural populations.
Yes, that is what Berlinski is saying that Kingsolver found, but what Kingsolver actually found was that there was a 16% increase in reproductive fitness, meaning that those with the modified trait leave 16% more offspring on average. (The selection gradient "represents the relationship of relative fitness to the variation in a quantitative trait measured in standard deviation units.")
Comment by Zachriel — February 4, 2010 @ 12:10 pm
February 4th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
It also refers to the differences in populations from one generation to the next.
Just because you cannot think for yourself doesn't mean that I do not know the theory of evolution.
Comment by ID guy — February 4, 2010 @ 12:17 pm
February 4th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Kingsolver found that selection is quite weak.
Anyone who can read will read that is what he found.
Comment by ID guy — February 4, 2010 @ 12:27 pm
February 4th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Zachriel wrote:
The answer is chicken.
Also, chicken.
Comment by angryoldfatman — February 4, 2010 @ 1:10 pm
February 4th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
In biology, that's called evolution.
Phylogenies are not determined by quantity but by the nesting of characteristics.
Comment by Zachriel — February 4, 2010 @ 3:41 pm
February 4th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
In the past three decades, selection has been detected and quantified in hundreds of populations in nature. These data demonstrate that not only does selection occur routinely in nature, but that it is often sufficiently potent to bring about substantial evolutionary change in a relatively short time period. Indeed, selection is now viewed as the primary cause of adaptive evolution within natural populations.
Comment by Zachriel — February 4, 2010 @ 4:10 pm
February 4th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Zachriel wrote:
Unless of course the traits are due to "convergent evolution" in which case the nests are in entirely different forests, much less trees.
And of course natural selection does all this magic when given deep time in which to work. Until you look at the chemical and genetic interactions necessary, that is. AND you look at what genes are there versus what are predicted to be there, just for good scientific measure.
But that doesn't matter, because we can simply point to the organisms and their obvious existence and state that RV+NS did it because that's all there is to it. And we have convenient Post-It Notes and Avery labels with "PSEUDOSCIENCE" and "RELIGIOSITY" scrawled on them that we can slap on any criticism and wave our dainty hands at it to make it disappear.
Comment by angryoldfatman — February 4, 2010 @ 5:43 pm
February 4th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
It also refers to the differences in populations from one generation to the next.
Perhaps but in order to check- ie measure- natural selection you have to measure the difference in variation from one generation to the next.
And descent still is not a characteristic.
Comment by ID guy — February 4, 2010 @ 6:29 pm
February 4th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
Kingsolver found that selection is quite weak.
I have my microscope notepad and pencil at the ready- let's see some examples of the power of natural selection
Choke on that…
Comment by ID guy — February 4, 2010 @ 6:38 pm
February 4th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Phylogenetic trees are formed by branchings, not natural selection.
Comment by Zachriel — February 4, 2010 @ 6:55 pm
February 4th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
You're not being clear. Are you disagreeing with the statement?
Comment by Zachriel — February 4, 2010 @ 6:59 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 8:07 am
Zachriel,
Provide examples that show the power of natural selection or admit that you have nuthin'.
That must hurt….
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 8:07 am
February 5th, 2010 at 8:41 am
Three questions:
Do you, or do you not, disagree with that statement?
That suggests that they detected natural selection in smaller populations. Is that correct?
The Kingsolver paper explains why they didn't detect selection in larger populations. Can you tell us what the explanation was?
Comment by Zachriel — February 5, 2010 @ 8:41 am
February 5th, 2010 at 8:51 am
In the past three decades, selection has been detected and quantified in hundreds of populations in nature. These data demonstrate that not only does selection occur routinely in nature, but that it is often sufficiently potent to bring about substantial evolutionary change in a relatively short time period. Indeed, selection is now viewed as the primary cause of adaptive evolution within natural populations.
Provide the examples so I can see if I disagree or agree.
IOW I need to see what you think a "substantial evolutionary change" is.
It is sobering, that for sample sizes exceeding ~10^3, most estimates for linear and quadratic selection gradients cluster between -0,1 and 0.1: our most powerful studies indicate that selection is weak or absent.- Klingsolver et al.
Very weak- You can go to the PDF and search on the word "weak" and you will find that is what they said.
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 8:51 am
February 5th, 2010 at 8:52 am
YOU tell us why Zachriel.
And while you are at it please remeber to provide valid examples of substantial evolutionary change.
That way we can all have a good laugh
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 8:52 am
February 5th, 2010 at 10:08 am
Zachriel wrote:
You are not being pedantic enough. Phylogenetic trees are formed by the imaginations of human beings sorting things. Like my children used to sort blocks by size, shape, and color, for example.
Comment by angryoldfatman — February 5, 2010 @ 10:08 am
February 5th, 2010 at 11:31 am
angryoldfatman wrote:
You seem to imply that this is a bad thing. All scientific theories are formed by the imaginations of human beings sorting things. They're not given to us cast in stone.
Comment by olegt — February 5, 2010 @ 11:31 am
February 5th, 2010 at 11:43 am
That's the question. Either you agree, disagree, or simply don't know if selection has been detected, potent and a primary cause of adaptation in natural populations.
That is a legitimate question. We'll define substantial change as occurring when the population mean would evolve such that it exceeds the initial range of variation in the population. So, do you agree or disagree with the statement?
In other words, you can't or won't answer the question, even though it is essential to your position. The small sample size results in quite low
power to detect selection.
Comment by Zachriel — February 5, 2010 @ 11:43 am
February 5th, 2010 at 11:50 am
You indicated that two misunderstandings of phylogeny, first that distance is the sole measure, and second that natural selection was the cause of phylogenetic trees. Uncrossed branching leads to a tree structure. It would behoove you to attempt and understanding of the basic claims of evolutionary theory.
Comment by Zachriel — February 5, 2010 @ 11:50 am
February 5th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Provide the examples so I can see if I disagree or agree.
The question is where are the examples?
So your "substantial change" is really nonsense and fits into the YEC baraminology.
IOW you got nuthin'.
A) won't, because you aren't in any position to test me.
B) It isn't essential to my position that you cannot support yours.
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 12:42 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
But when imagination is the only "evidence" something is amiss.
And it appears that the theory of evolution relies heavily on imagination.
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 12:44 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Please respond to the question. The statement makes the claim that selection has been detected, and that it can bring about substantial evolutionary change (as defined above). Do you agree or disagree?
The question was directly relevant to the Kingsolver paper—which you cited.
Comment by Zachriel — February 5, 2010 @ 1:44 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Your "definition" is too ambiguous to be of any use.
So why don't you provide examples of this alleged subnstantial evolutionary change?
If you can't do that the you don't have anything to discuss.
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 1:49 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
It's very specific. It means that the trait has evolved into new phenotypic territory. It's Kingsolver's criteria.
Comment by Zachriel — February 5, 2010 @ 2:06 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Your "definition" is too ambiguous to be of any use.
So why don't you provide examples of this alleged subnstantial evolutionary change?
If you can't do that the you don't have anything to discuss.
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 4:34 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Here are a few interesting quotes from Peter Forbes's review, (of the same book being discussed here) “Did Charles Darwin get it wrong?”
In other words, rather than natural selection being the primary “creative force” in evolution, it may be some kind of poorly understood "epigenetic" process. Why are Darwinist so opposed to exploring an alternative hypothesis like this? Maybe it seems to be a bit too Lamarckian.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 5, 2010 @ 7:42 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
You have repeatedly refused to answer questions about the very issues you've raised. Kingsolver's analysis provides a number of examples of natural selection.
Kingsolver, et al., The Strength of Phenotypic Selection in Natural Populations, The American Naturalist 2001.
Comment by Zachriel — February 5, 2010 @ 8:35 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Evolutionary biologists are intensely interested in exploring other mechanisms of evolution. Forbes overstates his case—as do you.
Futile? A direct quote from Mayr supporting this might be interesting.
This refutes a key prediction of Neo-Darwinism, Ernst's Mayr's statement that it would be futile to look for similar genes in different creatures. Neo-Darwinism predicted that random mutations would pile up until the genes of mice and men were as different as, say, the Finno-Ugric and the English languages.
It doesn't make sense because random mutations wouldn't pile up when the genes are under selection.
Comment by Zachriel — February 5, 2010 @ 8:48 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 10:33 pm
Zachriel,
So why don't you provide examples of this alleged subnstantial evolutionary change?
If you can't do that the you don't have anything to discuss.
What is your problem?
I am not looking for examples of natural selection.
I am looking for examples of natural selection producing substantial evolutionary change.
You said it so support it or admit you fibbed.
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 10:33 pm
February 6th, 2010 at 12:17 am
Actually, that was a quote from Kingsolver, whose work you indirectly cited to support your position. (His definition of "substantial evolutionary change" is in the same article.)
Are you saying Kingsolver fibbed?
Comment by Zachriel — February 6, 2010 @ 12:17 am
February 6th, 2010 at 12:41 am
Zachriel Says:
Why? What's wrong with the mechanisms random mutation and natural selection? Why can't they explain anything at all?
What objective, testable, methodology is employed by these evolutionary biologists to identify when the mechanism of natural selection is not capable of explaining some feature?
And how do we know when those genes are under selection? Is it when it looks like mutations didn't pile up? lawl
Comment by Mung — February 6, 2010 @ 12:41 am
February 6th, 2010 at 9:39 am
Fallacy of Reduction. For instance, you left out mechanisms of reproductive isolation, e.g. allopatric speciation.
As the question concerned predictions of a specific theory (neodarwinism), a gene (meaning a particle of inheritance) under selection is one associated with an adaptive phenotype.
Did anyone find the quote and context from Mayr? In any case, if a theory makes inaccurate predictions, it needs to be modified or discarded. That's what happens.
Comment by Zachriel — February 6, 2010 @ 9:39 am
February 6th, 2010 at 9:43 am
Zachriel,
People have noticed that you have refused to provide those examples of subnstantial evolutionary change.
I think it is time to admit that you don't have anything to offer.
However you won't because to do so requires honesty and that is a characteristic evolutionists just don't have.
As for Klingsolver fibbing- if he is an evolutionist then he is predisposed to do that
Comment by ID guy — February 6, 2010 @ 9:43 am
February 6th, 2010 at 9:45 am
What predictions does the theory of evolutyion make pertaining to blind andnon-goal oriented processes- ie the proposed mechanisms?
You have told us that such a claim can't even come up with a testable hypothesis.
Comment by ID guy — February 6, 2010 @ 9:45 am
February 6th, 2010 at 9:58 am
There is ambiguity in your use of terms. Are the complex patterns of planetary orbits due to blind and non-goal oriented processes?
Comment by Zachriel — February 6, 2010 @ 9:58 am
February 6th, 2010 at 10:07 am
You provided the reference yourself, albeit obliquely. No one can make you read the papers, though.
Kingsolver, et al., The Strength of Phenotypic Selection in Natural Populations, The American Naturalist 2001.
Pfennig & Kingsolver, Phenotypic Selection, "The Princeton Guide to Ecology," Princeton University Press 2009.
Gingerich, Rates of evolution: Effects of time and temporal scaling, Science 1983.
Reznick, Evaluation of the rate of evolution in natural populations of guppies (Poecilia ieticulata), Science 1997.
Oddly enough, you introduced Kingsolver into the discussion because you wanted to discuss his results.
Comment by Zachriel — February 6, 2010 @ 10:07 am
February 6th, 2010 at 10:12 am
What predictions does the theory of evolutyion make pertaining to blind andnon-goal oriented processes- ie the proposed mechanisms?
That is the theory of evolution for ya.
Don't blame me.
Not according to Newton.
Do you have any evidence that blind and non-goal oriented processes can conjure up the laws of physics?
Comment by ID guy — February 6, 2010 @ 10:12 am
February 6th, 2010 at 10:15 am
Guppies evolving into guppies refutes your claim of substantial evolutionary change.
Gingerrich doesn't provide any examples of substantial evolutionary change.
And I didn't read anything in either Klingsolver paper that supports the claim.
IOW Zachriel you cannot support your position and instead you just keep repeating stuff that doesn't help you.
Now why can't you produce one example of substantial evolutionary change so we can discuss it?
Comment by ID guy — February 6, 2010 @ 10:15 am
February 6th, 2010 at 11:00 am
The question was directed at you. Do you have scientific evidence of non-blind, goal oriented processes guiding the orbits of planets across the sky? What specific predictions are entailed in the hypothesis of non-blind, goal oriented planetary movements?
Comment by Zachriel — February 6, 2010 @ 11:00 am
February 6th, 2010 at 11:10 am
Yes.
We know where the planets will be- we can predict their path.
But stop with the distractions already.
It is obvious that you cannot support your position.
Thanks to you I am more convinced than ever that the theory of evolution is nonsense.
Thanks…
Comment by ID guy — February 6, 2010 @ 11:10 am
February 6th, 2010 at 11:19 am
Rates of evolution in guppies have been measured in the thousands of darwins, more than sufficient to explain historical transitions.
He summaries rates for a number of domains, but you might read a few of his other papers, especially
Gingerich, Quantification and comparison of evolutionary rates, American Journal of Science, 1993.
Gingerich, Evolution and the fossil record: patterns, rates, and processes, Canadian Journal of Zoology, 1987.
Gingerich, Rates of evolution in Plio-Pleistocene mammals: six case studies, Cambridge University Press 1993.
There are several other papers that concern evolutionary rates of change in mammals from various epochs. Hope that helps.
As substantial evolution change normally only happens over geological time scales, that means we first have to establish Common Descent so as to place the various organisms in their proper relationship. A good example, because the evidence includes fossils, embryos and genetics, and because the final structure is irreducibly complex, is the mammalian middle ear.
Comment by Zachriel — February 6, 2010 @ 11:19 am
February 6th, 2010 at 11:23 am
We usually do that with the inverse square law and momentum. Those aren't sighted, goal oriented mechanisms.
You brought up the ambiguous terminology.
Comment by Zachriel — February 6, 2010 @ 11:23 am
February 6th, 2010 at 11:28 am
OK
Sure they are.
Do you think they just poofed into being?
Incorrect. The theory of evolution relies on ambiguity. So don't blame me.
Comment by ID guy — February 6, 2010 @ 11:28 am
February 6th, 2010 at 11:36 am
Only historical transitions from a guppy into a guppy.
How many darwins did it take to get humans from the chimp-human common ancestor? Show your work.
So then you should be able to provide plenty of examples.
I am only asking for one.
IOW your literature bluff is duly noted.
IOW beyond the rigors of science.
Hence the problem- you can't establish Common Descent without first assuming it.
Except there isn't any genetic evidence to support the transition. Fossils are interpretted with the interpretaions being persuaded by preconceived biases. And the data from embryos is ambiguous at best.
Comment by ID guy — February 6, 2010 @ 11:36 am
February 6th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Momentum is a sighted, goal oriented mechanism. What is the goal of momentum beyond momentum?
Comment by Zachriel — February 6, 2010 @ 12:11 pm
February 6th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
The fastest period of change was during the evolution of brain-size in Homo at about 7 darwins, an increase of about 0.02% per generation.
Rightmire, The tempo of change in the evolution of mid-Pleistocene Homo, "Ancestors: the Hard Evidence," 1985.
Comment by Zachriel — February 6, 2010 @ 12:19 pm
February 6th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Zachriel:
You're totally clueless, aren't you.
Innacurate predictions? As in false?
Ad hoc'ery, quackery, non-falisfiability. Welcome to the world of evolutionary theory.
Comment by Mung — February 6, 2010 @ 3:30 pm
February 6th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Zachriel:
Absolutely. The fact that they tend to always follow the same path rather than go off and do something else entirely.
They always, or for the most part, act in the same way.
It's known as teleology.
Comment by Mung — February 6, 2010 @ 3:41 pm
February 6th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
teleology, directed toward an end or shaped by a purpose.
For instance, your purpose in walking might be to visit a friend. The purpose is defined in terms other than the act. All you have pointed to a simple regularity, momentum. You could point to anything and exclaim "Purpose!" but it's scientifically vacuous (and the question concerned scientific not metaphysical claims).
Comment by Zachriel — February 6, 2010 @ 4:15 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 10:39 am
How many darwins did it take to get humans from the chimp-human common ancestor?
IOW you don't know.
Just say so.
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 10:39 am
February 7th, 2010 at 10:41 am
.
Sure they are.
The laws that govern momentum were designed, ie telic.
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 10:41 am
February 7th, 2010 at 10:42 am
BTW Zachriel, we are still waiting for those examples of substantial evoiutionary change….
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 10:42 am
February 7th, 2010 at 10:53 am
The answer provided was a charitable reading of your question. Darwins are not a measure of distance, but rate of change. Directly observed evolutionary rates are in the thousands of darwins, much faster than required to explain evolution of hominids.
That doesn't make it sighted.
In any case, if momentum is "designed," then everything is designed, and you can't draw an empirical distinction between designed and undesigned. It becomes an empirically vacuous distinction.
You've been provided a number of cites. No one can make you read them.
Comment by Zachriel — February 7, 2010 @ 10:53 am
February 7th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Over at Uncommon Descent, Granville Sewell, makes this observation:
“Evolution is true. We have no idea how it happened by law and chance, but it happened by law and chance. 100% fact.” Does that sound like thinking of anyone over here?
If that isn’t circular reasoning, I don’t know what is.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 7, 2010 @ 12:00 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
John,
Let me count the number of errors and misconceptions in your message.
1. It wasn't Granville Sewell who said that, it was uoflcard.
2. The italicized excerpt represents circular reasoning because it's the straw man put together by creationists. We do have an idea about the mechanics of evolution. If creationists don't keep up with scientific literature, it's their own problem.
3. Seversky's comment was spot on: he quoted Jerry Fodor, the author of What Darwin Got Wrong. Setting aside the question of whether Fodor's criticisms of Darwinism are valid, it seems fair to quote Fodor at length.
Comment by olegt — February 7, 2010 @ 12:14 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Actually, it sounds like a strawman (not that Fodor's arguments are particularly well-reasoned, but they should be fairly represented).
-Proudly banned
threefour times by Uncommon Descent.Comment by Zachriel — February 7, 2010 @ 12:18 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Olegt:
You are right. Let’s see what Sewell wrote:
UofLCardinal (#7), I was about to write almost exactly the same thing, so I’ll just quote you:
I didn’t say Sewell said it, I used the word “observation.” Why the nit picking?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 7, 2010 @ 12:28 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
John, by the same token, why not answer points 2 and 3?
Comment by olegt — February 7, 2010 @ 12:33 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Olegt:
Well, give me a chance, will you?
#2 That’s a dodge on your part. “You guy’s are just aren’t keeping up on the literature.”
Yeah, yeah we have heard that one before too.
Okay let’s look at what Fodor said. This I think is the heart of what he is saying:
Fodor: “It is, in short, one thing to wonder whether evolution happens; it’s quite another thing to wonder whether adaptation is the mechanism by which evolution happens.”
What I have been trying to point out in this thread and several others it that the evidence that natural selection acting on random variation is insufficient to account for any kind of significant evolutionary change. I think that is exactly what Fodor is arguing. I understand he still believes in evolution. Duh! He is an atheist what other choice does he have? But his belief in evolution is a metaphysical belief not an empirical one. How can one make a empirical claim when we don’t understands the underlying mechanisms that allows evolution to occur?
If you and Zachriel are familiar with the literature as you say you are, and, you have an answer to the questions we have been asking on these several threads, why not provide the answers? Or, are they too complicated for us little people to understand? If that is the case why even bother?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 7, 2010 @ 1:02 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
OK, John, did you follow any of the links that Zachriel has been posting in this forum? Maybe you should.
And here is one that I have mentioned here a few times:
Is that significant enough for you?
Comment by olegt — February 7, 2010 @ 1:11 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
trollegt-
No, one new binding site for HIV is not significant at all.
It fits in very well with baraminolgy.
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 3:45 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Neither you nor anyone else knows if the transitions required can be achieved via any mechanism.
You don't have any way to quantify such a thing.
All the change you can provide examples for confirm baraminology.
The laws that govern momentum were designed, ie telic.
The sight is the designer's.
That is the designer(s) had enough insight to plan ahead- ie see what will be required.
That doesn't even make sense.
Who are you to make such a nonsensical claim?
The way leaves fall isn't designed.
They may be the result of the design but that is something entirely different.
we are still waiting for those examples of substantial evoiutionary change
I am aware of your literature bluff.
Obviously you haven't read them or you would have just plucked example after example from them.
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 3:50 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Nice conflation- evolution is the debate you crackpot.
Yes allele frequency changes.
That does not mean that the change is due solely to blind, non-goal oriented processes.
Why is that you people think you can argue against something that you obviously refuse to understand?
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 3:53 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
But just a moment ago, you said that gravity and momentum were sighted, goal oriented mechanisms.
The evolution of the mammalian middle ear is an excellent example, because there are fossils of the transition, embryonic and genetic data, and because it's cool.
Comment by Zachriel — February 7, 2010 @ 4:25 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
The way leaves fall isn't designed.
I take it that you never observed leaves falling.
Not my problem.
Obviously you haven't read them or you would have just plucked example after example from them.
Except that is assumed and therefore not an example of anything.
Also there isn't any genetic data that supports the transition. There isn't any evidence from embryos either.
And the fossil evidence depends on the assumption.
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 4:38 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
olegt and zachriel:
Look what Seversky wrote (#14) earlier this afternoon over at UD.
I think I agree with everything that he is saying here. What about you guys?
Let’s read on… (skipping a couple of paragraphs)
Wow! I agree with that too. (I think I like this guy.)
Okay, in interest of time and space let me leap frog ahead to the conclusion.
Here I think I disagree (but only a little) with my new found friend. I agree that empirical science must proceed using MN (methodological naturalism). However, I think problems occur when one conflates MN with philosophical naturalism. In other words, just because empirical science can only follow the evidentiary trail of natural causes, does not allow us to draw the conclusion that natural causes are all that exist, and therefore can be used to explain anything. I think I see that implicit in his conclusion. If that is accurate, I disagree with him there because that is in fact smuggling a metaphysical preconception into science.
All-in-all, however, I think that he wrote a good little essay. I’ll give him an A+.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 7, 2010 @ 5:54 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 10:18 pm
From Common Descent we know about the evolutionary history of fins to legs to arms to wings to fins. We can discuss how those transitions occurred once we have established that they have, and Common Descent is very well established.
Seversky didn't draw that conclusion in the snippets you provided. He merely pointed out that God has no clear and distinguishing implications, much less empirical predictions. Until that is forecoming, God is simply scientifically irrelevant.
Methodological Naturalism is just a shorthand to pare off many common supernatural beliefs, spirits and goblins and the like. But it's just a shorthand. What is really happening is that entities without clear entailments are scientifically vacuous. It really isn't necessary to be hung on the distinctions about natural and supernatural.
-Proudly banned
threefour times by Uncommon Descent.Comment by Zachriel — February 7, 2010 @ 10:18 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 12:01 am
How can we "know" anything from just an assumption?
You mean if we assume Common Descent then we can imagine such a scenario.
How was it well established?
The same evidence for it can be used to support alternative scenarios.
There isn't any way to test the transitions and link them to any mechanism.
And yet the greatest scientists on Earth used science as a way of understanding his work.
However design has specific empirical predictions and it has clear and distinguishable implications.
There aren't any empirical predictions to be made from blind and non-goal oriented processes.
Comment by ID guy — February 8, 2010 @ 12:01 am
February 8th, 2010 at 12:02 am
You appear to have difficulties with the English language.
You can only be banned once.
The other times must have been mere suspensions.
Comment by ID guy — February 8, 2010 @ 12:02 am
February 8th, 2010 at 8:33 am
You can't. But we can test the entailments of those assumptions. The evidence for Common Descent is found in the
nestedcontainment hierarchy of morphology, embyonics, genomics, biogeography and the succession of fossils.Which are?
Bans can be lifted, and were.
Comment by Zachriel — February 8, 2010 @ 8:33 am
February 8th, 2010 at 9:17 am
That is a lie.
1- Transitional forms by their very nature say that nested hierarchy is not expected.
2- Morphology can be explained by convergence and common design
3- genomics can be explained by convergence and common design
4- Embryonics doesn't support Common Descent- thta has been known for decades.
However design has specific empirical predictions and it has clear and distinguishable implications.
Same as last time Zach. Nothing has changed.
Comment by ID guy — February 8, 2010 @ 9:17 am
February 8th, 2010 at 9:41 am
[...] Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini sounds familiar to Telic Thoughts readers it is likely due to this. More: Why not just thrash these ideas out in the open as in other professional fields and properly [...]
Pingback by Peer Review - Telic Thoughts — February 8, 2010 @ 9:41 am
February 8th, 2010 at 9:42 am
Acceptable discourse:
Unacceptable discourse:
From Darwin to the present, biologists say that transitional forms are consistent with the nested hierarchy and Common Descent. Just constantly repeating yourself and stumbling around the definition of nested hiearchy doesn't constitute an argument.
Comment by Zachriel — February 8, 2010 @ 9:42 am
February 8th, 2010 at 11:38 am
That is incorrect.
Transitional forms have a mix of characteristics:
Nested Hierarchies and Common Descent
BTW Darwin did not say that Common Descent leads to a nested hierarchy.
Your continued lying does not help your case.
Comment by ID guy — February 8, 2010 @ 11:38 am
February 8th, 2010 at 11:39 am
Zachriel,
Yes your continued lying is unacceptable discourse.
So wise up…
Comment by ID guy — February 8, 2010 @ 11:39 am
February 8th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
This is your area of confusion.
ancestral fish --- >> modern fishancestral fish --- >> fishopods --- >> land vertebrates
The containing group is
ancestral fish, containingmodern fish,fishpodsandland vertebrates. In retropect,fishopodsappear to have characteristics ofmodern fishandland vertebrates, but what they really have are the characteristics of theancestral fishwhich are very similar tomodern fish, and the derived characteristics leading toland vertebrates. They do not have the derived characteristics ofmodern fish. This is consistent with taxonomy and with phylogeny.Talk Origins is referring to crosses between what are posited to be distinct lineages, such as tits on a frog. This would violate the nested hierarchy.
Or what? Banishment? That does nothing to further your credibility or your argument, any more than casting aspersions does.
Comment by Zachriel — February 8, 2010 @ 12:01 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Zachriel,
The confusion is all yours.
Transitional forms have a mix of characteristics.
THAT is the very nature of transitional forms.
Do tell what prevents frogs from having tits.
Please be specific and show your work.
Comment by ID guy — February 8, 2010 @ 12:07 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Yes your continued lying is unacceptable discourse. So wise up…
Forget it.
Keep lying. You do more to hurt your position than anything I could say.
Thanks.
Comment by ID guy — February 8, 2010 @ 12:08 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
They have inherited characteristics, and derived characteristics.
Because mammary glands are not in their ancestral lineage. New frog species are discovered all the time. We can predict that no frog species will have mammary glands.
Comment by Zachriel — February 8, 2010 @ 12:11 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Transitional forms have a mix of characteristics.
They have a mix.
For example reptiles and mammals are different nested groupings.
Reptile-like mammals and mammal-like reptiles would have a mix of those different nested groupings.
Do tell what prevents frogs from having tits.
Please be specific and show your work.
Why is that?
What prevented tits from forming in fish?
You cannot make that prediction. Evolution is not beholden to our ideas of classification.
But thank you for proving you don't know what you are talking about.
Comment by ID guy — February 8, 2010 @ 12:24 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
The old Linnaean classification "Reptiles" is paraphyletic. Amniota (amnion) is the modern classification, and contains reptiles, mammals and birds, but not amphibians.
Frogs inherited their characteristics with modification. Mammary glands evolved in the mammalian lineage after mammals and frogs split from their amniote ancestor. A designer might be able to cross lineages and put tits on a frog, or a human torso on a horse's body, or dragon wings on a lion, but not evolution.
One lineage of primitive jawed fish did evolve into mammals. Extant fish took a separate evolutionary path.
Just did.
You're on the edge of an epiphany. Evolution is highly constrained as to what we expect to observe. That includes tits on a frog, and other predictions based on phylogeny. Let's check the Froglog, Newsletter of the Amphibian Specialist Group. Several new frog species, none with tits.
Comment by Zachriel — February 8, 2010 @ 2:01 pm
February 10th, 2010 at 8:48 am
For example reptiles and mammals are different nested groupings.
That is cladistics, which is different from Linnean taxonomy.
Nice try with the bait-n-switch.
As I said the transitionals would violate the nested hierarchy- part mammal, part reptile- where do I put it in the nested hierarchy of Linnean classification?
Comment by ID guy — February 10, 2010 @ 8:48 am
February 10th, 2010 at 8:51 am
Also as I have said many times- with cladistics EVERY point along the connecting lines is a transitional form.
And once all of tem are included the orderly cladogram becomes a confused mess as every transitional also is a vertex.
Comment by ID guy — February 10, 2010 @ 8:51 am
February 10th, 2010 at 8:52 am
Why Zachriel?
Just saying it doesn't make it so.
What DNA sequence(s) are responsible for tits?
Don't know? Then you don't have anything to say about the matter.
You have no idea if a frog can evolve tits.
Comment by ID guy — February 10, 2010 @ 8:52 am
February 10th, 2010 at 10:08 am
Yes, that's right. Linnaean taxonomy has been supplanted, however, both cladistics and Linnaean taxonomy classify according to nested hierarchies.
As already mentioned, the old Linnaean classification "Reptiles" is paraphyletic. However, we can place mammals and reptiles within the modern classification of Amniota. All mammals, reptiles and birds have amnions.
Yes. We form our clades based a species and all of its descendent species. Hence, by necessity, it forms a nested hierarchy.
No matter how many nodes are involved, it forms a nested hierarchy.
We can predict that every new species of animal (e.g. frogs, insects) will fit the nested hierarchy. And new species of animals are discovered all the time.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2010 @ 10:08 am
February 10th, 2010 at 10:19 am
That is incorrect. They both use characteristics to construct nested hierarchies
However Linnean taxonomy is a nested hierarchy through-n-through. Cladistics is not.
Only clades for nested hierarchies and that is only when the tips are present.
In the "New Book" thread Tom MH linked to an article:
Starting at the bottom of page 11
This is important because this is what I have been saying.
Page 13:
“Terminal species” means no transitional forms- the tips of the branches- again this is what I have been saying.
Page 27
IOW Zachriel the experts requte your claim.
Let the flailing begin…
Comment by ID guy — February 10, 2010 @ 10:19 am
February 10th, 2010 at 11:00 am
Clades are nested within one another—they form a nested hierarchy.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2010 @ 11:00 am
February 11th, 2010 at 8:22 am
However Linnean taxonomy is a nested hierarchy through-n-through. Cladistics is not.
Yet with a cladogram fish are ancestral to mammals yet mammals to not consist of nor contain all the defining characteristics of fish.
IOW Zach there isn't any nested hierarchy.
However seeing that you don't have any idea aboiut nested hierarchies you will continue to make the same mistakes.
Comment by ID guy — February 11, 2010 @ 8:22 am
February 11th, 2010 at 9:20 am
Zachriel wrote:
Zachriel, it's pointless, we've already been through that. 4 months ago I wrote this:
After much huffing and puffing Joe produced what he thought was a killer argument disproving a nested hierarchy of clades:
After he thus painted himself into a corner, he sorta, kinda conceded but kept making stuff up:
He couldn't wrap his brain around the concept of a clade then, he won't be able to do it now.
Comment by olegt — February 11, 2010 @ 9:20 am
February 11th, 2010 at 9:22 am
ID guy wrote:
Still using that trusty source, Joe?
Comment by olegt — February 11, 2010 @ 9:22 am
February 11th, 2010 at 9:31 am
trollegt,
You don't know what you are talking about and your pathetic attempts at distraction is duly noted.
Now are fish ancestral to mammals or not?
If thbey are then we should consist of and contain ALL of their defining characteristrics IF descent with modification leads to a nested hierarchy.
Clades are based on shared characteristics with descent being assumed.
They are not based on descent.
They have to be based on descent and descent alone in order for Zachriel's argument to hold any water.
Again I have no problem with nested hierarchies based on characteristics.
However it is obvious that although a clade may be a nested hierarchy the entire cladogram is not.
In Linnean classification the entire taxa is a nested hierarchy.
Not that I would expect a dolt like trollegt to understand any of that…
Comment by ID guy — February 11, 2010 @ 9:31 am
February 11th, 2010 at 9:33 am
It is better than anything you have to offer.
BTW Tom MH's reference says the same thing.
IOW you don't have a clue- just as you didn't have a clue about prions.
Still arguing with your head up your ass I see…
Comment by ID guy — February 11, 2010 @ 9:33 am
February 11th, 2010 at 9:35 am
ID guy wrote:
See, Zachriel? He still has no idea what a clade is.
Comment by olegt — February 11, 2010 @ 9:35 am
February 11th, 2010 at 9:37 am
Joe,
Stop referring to ISSS. They're not a respectable source. They're a cargo cult science.
Comment by olegt — February 11, 2010 @ 9:37 am
February 11th, 2010 at 9:39 am
For olegt the ignorant:
My position has always been that nested hierarchies are based on CHARACTERISTICS.
Zachriel said that nested hierarchies can be based on descent alone- IOW descent with modification predicts a nested hierarchy- which is an artificial construct.
Yet he cannot provide one example of this.
OTOH I have provided plenty of examples to support my claim.
You have chimed in and supported my claim as clades are based on characteristics with ancestry being assumed.
That you can't wrap your pinhead around that exposes your agenda of subterfuge…
Comment by ID guy — February 11, 2010 @ 9:39 am
February 11th, 2010 at 9:42 am
ID guy wrote:
Joe, no one cares what your position is. The standard, commonly accepted biological classification of living organisms is a nested hierarchy of clades. Period. End of the story.
Comment by olegt — February 11, 2010 @ 9:42 am
February 11th, 2010 at 9:45 am
Clades are based on shared characteristics with descent being assumed.
They are not based on descent.
Except what I said happens to be correct.
wikipedia:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/...
Also the ISSS is more respectable than any source you can provide
Comment by ID guy — February 11, 2010 @ 9:45 am
February 11th, 2010 at 9:49 am
A clade is a nested hierarchy based on shared characteristics with ancestry being assumed.
You say no one cares about my position yet all you have been doing is supporting what I have claimed.
A cladogram of all living things is not a nested hierarchy for the reasons provided.
Also Tom MH has provided another reference- other than the ISSS- that also supports my position.
And no one- not you nor anyone else- has shown the ISSS page on hierarchy theory to be incorrect.
All YOU have is to whine like a littel cry-baby.
Do you think your whining helps your case?
Comment by ID guy — February 11, 2010 @ 9:49 am
February 11th, 2010 at 9:52 am
Joe, do you read your own references?
The first paragraph of that web page explains that philogenetic trees are based on ancestry. Ancestry is inferred from various lines of evidence:
Shared morphology is just one of them, but not the only one. Genetic information is also used.
And if you insist one more time that ISSS as a reliable source of information, I'm going to post a few more quotations from it.
Comment by olegt — February 11, 2010 @ 9:52 am
February 11th, 2010 at 9:55 am
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/c...
Comment by ID guy — February 11, 2010 @ 9:55 am
February 11th, 2010 at 9:57 am
If ancstry is inferred then the tree is not based on it. Duh.
I said shared characteristics- genetics would be a characteristic. Duh.
I have noticed that you have failed to provide a valid reference pertaining to nested hierarchies.
Why is that?
I say it is because you are an asshole.
What do you say?
Comment by ID guy — February 11, 2010 @ 9:57 am
February 11th, 2010 at 10:01 am
BTW if people are trying to refute my positioin then they had better care what my position is. period. end of story.
That you keep posting information that suppoorts my position tells me you cannot find any data to refute it.
Comment by ID guy — February 11, 2010 @ 10:01 am
February 11th, 2010 at 10:05 am
Joe,
Your position is based on a definition of a nested hierarchy that comes from a crank web site. If you want to participate in a meaningful discussion, learn first how nested hierarchies are used in the biological context. You haven't, so people won't engage you seriously.
Comment by olegt — February 11, 2010 @ 10:05 am
February 11th, 2010 at 10:05 am
cladistics:
Comment by ID guy — February 11, 2010 @ 10:05 am
February 11th, 2010 at 10:07 am
trollegt,
You have failed to show that the ISSS page is incorrect.
You have failed to provide any other valid reference.
You have failed to show that nested hierarchy in biology is any different from any other nested hierarchy.
Tom MH has and his new reference still supports my claims.
IOW trolleg you are nuthin' but a cry-baby.
Comment by ID guy — February 11, 2010 @ 10:07 am
February 11th, 2010 at 10:09 am
How to argue like an asshole-
Don't engage in any discussion about evidence.
Just say that your opponent and all your opponents' references are cranks.
That is why no one takes trollegt seriously.
If we use his standard then he is a crank for not knowing about prions.
IOW trolleg it appears that I know more about biology than you do.
Comment by ID guy — February 11, 2010 @ 10:09 am
February 11th, 2010 at 10:12 am
A challenge for olegt- or anyone else-
Find a valid reference pertaining to nested hierarchies that contradicts the ISSS web-page on the summary of hierarchy theory.
Failure to do so proves that olegt is a whiny cry-baby.
Comment by ID guy — February 11, 2010 @ 10:12 am
February 11th, 2010 at 10:39 am
Oh, it's been worse. Joe G once argued that you can't treat the pocket-stuff of Sam of Ballyvourney's pocket as a set, even if it's empty. That how fundamental his confusion was.
If mammals descended from fish, why are their still fish? Mammals did not descend from modern fish. Mammals and modern fish descended from an ancestral fish.
If they had all of the defining characteristics of modern fish, they would be modern fish and not mammals.
If we posit descent along uncrossed lines, it forms a nested hierarchy based on clades, that is, each ancestor grouped with all of its descendents. If life evolves by descent with trait modification along uncrossed lines, then we can predict that traits should likewise group into a nested hierarchy. As we do observe a nested hierarchy of traits, this lends support to Common Descent. Predictions, such as fossil discoveries in specified strata, provide additional support. The exceptions, such as endogenous retroviruses, help prove the rule.
Now you got it. A cladogram is a nested hierarchy that represents hypothesized evolutionary relationships. These are tested against biological observations, such as morphological and genomic data.
Comment by Zachriel — February 11, 2010 @ 10:39 am
February 12th, 2010 at 8:06 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 8:06 am
February 12th, 2010 at 8:14 am
Interesting- do you have any evidence to support that claim?
Now are fish ancestral to mammals or not?
Exactly!
And in order for there to be a nested hierarchy mammals would have to have all of the deining characteristics of fish- such as gills and fins.
We do not therefore your claim is refuted.
If thbey are then we should consist of and contain ALL of their defining characteristrics IF descent with modification leads to a nested hierarchy.
Not if they also had all the defining characteistics of ammals.
That is what we would expect if your claim were true- all descendents would have all the characteristics of all ancestors plus their own derived characteristics.
Zachriel said that nested hierarchies can be based on descent alone- IOW descent with modification predicts a nested hierarchy- which is an artificial construct.
Except that clades are so defined based on CHARACTERISTICS with descent being assumed.
Nested hierarchies are based on characteristics, not descent.
That is my claim- that nested hierarchies are built on traits.
Thank you for continuing to support my claim.
A CLADE is a ensted heirarchy not the entire cladogram.
And it is a nested hierarchy because that is how we constructed it and we constructed it via shared characteristics, not descent.
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 8:14 am
February 12th, 2010 at 8:30 am
What happened to olegt?
I take it that he cannot support his claim that the ISSS page on hierarchies is incorrect.
I also take it that he cannot produce another reference pertaining to nested hierarchies.
BTW olegt- Dr Allen- the author of that page- is a biologist.
IOW thank you for continuing to prove that you are a crackpot.
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 8:30 am
February 12th, 2010 at 8:46 am
Joe,
The Wikipedia article on clades begins thus:
So yes, common descent is the theoretical foundation for cladistics. Common traits and shared genetics are tools that help biologists build the clade systematics.
One thing you can't seem to understand: traits need not be conserved forever. Shared characteristics are used to infer ancestral connections between species locally. Species A can share traits with a later species B. Species B can share traits with a later species C. On an on to Z. Even though A and Z are connected by direct descent, A likely lacks certain traits that Z has and vice versa. Cladistics nonetheless says that Z is in A's clade.
Your homegrown definition, inspired by cranks at ISSS, leads to a rather arbitrary classification. The results depend on which traits you want to include the process. If it's gills and fins then fish and mammals are not in the same group. If it's the existence of a skeleton they are. Likewise, birds and reptiles may be related or unrelated depending on which traits you include.
An even more striking example would be the E. coli used in Robert Lenski's experiment. E. coli are frequently distinguished from Salmonella by the former's inability to digest citric acid. However, the bacteria in Lenski's experiment evolved that ability. So if you classify bacteria on the basis of this trait, the newly emerged E. coli will not be in the same group as the original ones.
These examples clearly show the limitations of your classification scheme, which is akin to the old biological classification of Linnaeus. Cladistics does not have those difficulties. That's why the Linnaean taxonomy has been abandoned in favor of cladistics.
P.S. Classifications, like definitions, are not right and wrong. One can use the Linnaean scheme, but with our current understanding of biology that scheme is not all that sensible. Cladistics reflects the newly found, more fundamental understanding of life based on common descent. That's why we use cladistics now.
Comment by olegt — February 12, 2010 @ 8:46 am
February 12th, 2010 at 8:49 am
Stop this.
Comment by Bradford — February 12, 2010 @ 8:49 am
February 12th, 2010 at 8:56 am
Theoretical is then key word.
IOW as I said descent is assumed and clades are based on shared characteristics.
I know that.
However if there is to be a nested hierarchjy based on traits then those defining traist must be immutable.
That is what I have been saying. Infer, presume, assume.
That is what you say- however you are a crackpot.
Also you have never suppoorted your claim about that website- the one pertaining to hierarchies.
And you never provided any reference to suppoirt your position.- A reference defing nested hierarchies.
I know that.
I have always known that.
The key word is "traits".
IOW you are supporting my position.
However you are not addressing the issue.
Zachriel has claimed that descent and descent alone leads to a nested hierarchy.
So perhaps you can pull your head out long enough to actually address what is being debated.
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 8:56 am
February 12th, 2010 at 8:57 am
I take it that he cannot support his claim that the ISSS page on hierarchies is incorrect.
I also take it that he cannot produce another reference pertaining to nested hierarchies.
BTW olegt- Dr Allen- the author of that page- is a biologist.
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 8:57 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:05 am
Is being a biologist somehow make you immune to crackpottery?
Comment by olegt — February 12, 2010 @ 9:05 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:14 am
Georg Cantor: By a "set" we mean any collection M into a whole of definite, distinct objects m (which are called the "elements" of M) of our perception or of our thought.
Hence, we can treat the contents of Sam's of Ballyvourney's pocket as a set. If Sam's pocket is empty, we call it the empty set, represented as ∅ or {}.
Comment by Zachriel — February 12, 2010 @ 9:14 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:14 am
olegt-
You said something about what biologists use.
Dr Allen is a biologist.
Also you have failed to show that Dr Allen's page is incorrect- you just proclaimed it is. Only crackpots do shit like that.
On top of all of that you have failed to provide any valid reference pertaining to the definition of a nested hierarchy.
All of those failures prove you are a crank.
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 9:14 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:16 am
ID guy: Interesting- do you have any evidence to support that claim?
You didn't support your claim Zach.
IOW Zachriel lied.
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 9:16 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:19 am
Bradford wrote:
Joe can't. He has no other ways of communicating. It's his native tongue.
Comment by olegt — February 12, 2010 @ 9:19 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:23 am
The containing group would be vertebrata or gnathostomata, or more recently, sarcopterygii.
You really need to quit tripping over terminology. You can call it what you want, but an ordered set such that each subset is contained within its superset is called a nested hierarchy. If we have unbranched descent, then it forms a nested hierarchy if we group by branch and stem.
A clade is defined as a set that includes the ancestor and all its descendents. A cladogram is a tree diagram, and can be refigured as a nested hierarchy if grouped by branch and stem. This is true whether or not it accurately represents biological organisms.
Comment by Zachriel — February 12, 2010 @ 9:23 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:34 am
And in order for there to be a nested hierarchy mammals would have to have all of the deining characteristics of fish- such as gills and fins.
That doesn't even address what I said.
Nested hierarchies are based on characteristics, not descent.
You really need to stop with the false accusations and bald assertions.
Yet you don't have that with descent with modification.
In order for thenre to be an ordered set such that each subset is contained within its superset, all members must share the same defining characteristics.
Fish and mammals do not. Fish are ancestral to mammals. Therefore there isn't a nested hierarchy via descent.
CLADE is a ensted heirarchy not the entire cladogram.
I know what it is.
Ooops:
Trees branch in more than one direction. Cladograms do not branch as trees do.
And it is already a given that the entire cladogram does not form a nested hierarchy.
Clades do but that is because we construct them that way- nested hierarchies based on shared characteristics.
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 9:34 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:35 am
And trollegt's native tongue is to lie, misrepresent and call people names.
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 9:35 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:38 am
But we don't have to use your arbitrary classification. For instance, we can group fish and fishermen as jawed vertebrates.
If you didn't think the question was answered sufficiently, the reasonable response is to ask for clarification. Do you disagree that 'Sam of Balleyvourney's pocket-stuff' can be considered as a set, even if it is empty? Or that 'Sam of Ballyvourney's pocket-stuff' is a subset of 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff', even if every pocket in County Cork is empty? (In case you don't know Sam, Sam can always be found at the Ballyvourney Mills Inn dancing the Ballyvourney Jig.)
Comment by Zachriel — February 12, 2010 @ 9:38 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:46 am
ID guy: Interesting- do you have any evidence to support that claim?
I am still waiting for you to support that claim.
If you cannot then apologize to the blog and admit that you lied.
If you refuse to do either then we have nothing left to discuss as trying toi have a discussion with a low-life liar is impossible.
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 9:46 am
February 12th, 2010 at 10:03 am
You were provided a definition of set from Georg Cantor. Do you disagree that 'Sam of Balleyvourney's pocket-stuff' can be considered as a set, even if it is empty? What if he has a penny in his pocket and his girl Molly has a penny in her pocket?
Comment by Zachriel — February 12, 2010 @ 10:03 am
February 12th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Zachriel,
Apologize to the blog and admit that you lied.
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 10:16 am
February 12th, 2010 at 10:22 am
What happened olegt?
You are full of false accusations and bald assertions but when it comes time for you to support your claims all we get is silence.
That usually means you are preparing more false accusations and bald assertions.
And if that is all you can do then why waste everyone's time?
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 10:22 am
February 12th, 2010 at 10:47 am
trollegt said:
Dr Allen is a biologist and all nested hierarchies follow the rules he posted.
That you can't accept that and you can't find anything that shows otherwise, proves my point.
Thank you.
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 10:47 am
February 12th, 2010 at 10:59 am
This is a warning to all. Cease the discussions on nested hierarchies while on my threads. It is off topic and going nowhere anyway. This thread is closed. The warnings will be followed by holings and thread bannings if needed. I hope it does not have to go further than that.
Comment by Bradford — February 12, 2010 @ 10:59 am